How Journalists Learn to Hate Your Firearms Freedom (And What You Can Do About It)

“In order to achieve national standards for gun control our leaders cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of political expediency,” Marda Dunsky writes at aljazeera.com. “As a people, Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms. We have to think the unthinkable and recast the gun-control debate in personal terms: As things stand now, almost any of us can find ourselves in a nightmare scenario in almost any public place at almost any time. The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters. What matters is that it can and does routinely happen in the kind of ordinary places that most of us frequent.” Did you catch all that? Let’s back up a bit and review . . .

In her article – Will we come to our senses on gun control in 2014? – Professor Dunsky assumes we must achieve national standards for gun control. Why?

Recent headlines and morning news shows tout decreasing numbers of homicides in cities including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit, and so we bolster our sense of safety with these sound bites – even as Baltimore and Newark, among others, continue to struggle with rising rates of gun-related violence and death.

Strange that Dunsky didn’t spend thirty seconds Googling for facts before making her case. Here’s the dope on Baltimore’s firearms-related homicide stats from baltimoresun.com, January 2013:

As the Police Department’s leadership changed, the city recorded 217 killings, about 10 percent more than the 197 in 2011, but still the second-lowest homicide rate since the late 1980s. Police statistics released Tuesday show that total crime and most categories of gun violence continued to decline.

Sounds like Baltimore need some tougher sentencing standards, rather than increased gun control for gun owners who’ve committed no crime. Swap out “newark” for “baltimore” in the above search and the very first link (city-data.com) provides a handy chart of murders per 100k Newark residents between 1999 and 2011. It’s been holding steady at around 90 for about a decade.

I could dig deeper, but why bother? Dunksy makes no secret of her disdain for the facts relating to the topic of gun control. Which brings us back to the non-sensical salvo opening this post: “Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms.” In other words, screw the Second Amendment.

Yes, we have constitutional rights that allow us to bear arms and to produce and consume violent entertainment. Yet these freedoms have proven to have dangerous, if not fatal, impacts on public safety. Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings – and what people have created, people can change, for their own good.

Dunksy believes Americans must sacrifice their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms on the altar of public safety. It’s the same argument Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny recently used to uphold New York’s risible SAFE Act. It’s wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s go with this . . .

The fact that a woman who relies on First Amendment protections to publish an anti-gun dietribe [sic] calls for the curtailment of violent entertainment and gun rights indicates her contempt for anything remotely resembling freedom. The article’s subhead tells you all you need to know about that: Americans cannot continue framing gun control laws in terms of infringement on their freedom. Never mind why the hell not, says who?

It’s not clear if Dunsky caters to the students’ pre-existing anti-gun bias, reinforces it or instills it in impressionable minds. I’m thinking all three (when she’s not holding forth on the Palestinian question). What’s more clear: The People of the Gun are fighting an uphill battle. While we’re converting fence-straddlers to the pro-gun position, J-schools are cranking out hundreds of graduates who hold our gun rights in contempt. When it comes to influencing low-information voters, one of them is worth several thousand of us.

We can’t silence the misguided media elitists spreading anti-gun agitprop. Nor should we. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Let Dunsky speak. But Tweet, Facebook and email pro-gun links within your social and professional circle. Don’t expect everyone to accept your 2A comms. The truth hurts, but it can also set you free. At the same time, encourage young guns to go to J-school. The sooner we change the culture in the Ivory Tower, the better.

99 Responses to How Journalists Learn to Hate Your Firearms Freedom (And What You Can Do About It)

Al Jazeera (original flavor) actually was pretty unbiased and fact-centric prior to “AJAmerica.” That took a sudden left at birth, and kept going over the horizon. It’s not possible to watch AJ the original in the US any more, either on cable or the Interwebz. Luckily nobody in America watches AJAmerica.

Many think the turn was to assertive dictatorial royal government. While Qatar has always jailed journalists that it doesn’t like, it tried to be more discreet abroad. But then: “According to one of those that has recently left, the German based Aktham Sulimen, “Before the beginning of the Arab Spring, we were a voice for change…a platform for critics and political activists throughout the region. Now, Al-Jazeera has become a propaganda broadcaster.”

According to another Beirut based correspondent, “Al-Jazeera takes a clear position in every country from which it reports – not based on journalistic priorities, but rather on the interests of the Foreign Ministry of Qatar……In order to maintain my integrity as a reporter, I had to quit.” “

“In order to achieve national standards for gun control our leaders cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of political expediency, As a people, Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms. We have to think the unthinkable and recast the gun-control debate in personal terms: As things stand now, almost any of us can find ourselves in a nightmare scenario in almost any public place at almost any time. The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters. What matters is that it can and does routinely happen in the kind of ordinary places that most of us frequent.”

Weird, one could use the same statement to justify why they are pro gun. Did she plagiarize this from Wayne Lapierre?

One proviso – and understand that I am a total proponent of Constitutional Carry – Any person on their own property, and any business entity should have the right to prohibit carryon the property that they legally control, provided it is clearly indicated as GFZ by prominent and highly visible signs that only provide legal authority to ask you to leave.

In government buildings where criminals are found (jails, prisons, courthouses, legislative halls while politicians are present) some argument could be made for prohibiting the carry of weapons other than by security forces.

Wow, where I come from we find criminals in lots of places, not just government buildings. You want to make the problem the people exercising their rights, not the criminals. The easy way out…banning guns in the area…isn’t the right way. Control the criminals, not the free people.

“Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings” Really? I thought the founders were codifying certain natural laws they thought so important they needed to be spelled out, and finished off the bill of rights by saying government could ONLY do what was specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The document grants GOVERNMENT its fairly limited rights, reserving all others for the people.

All they have to do is look into the actual data on this topic, ALL of the data and available information, not just what supports their existing beliefs and they will change their minds. I did it, it’s not that hard.

Wow professor, did you even bother to research before writing? I mean having your own opinion is nice, but trying to base law on your flawed facts (what was it Robert: 30 seconds of googling?) is just embarassingly stupid.

Aljazeera! Now the left is holding up the Arab political organ (Sorry for the mental image) as a credible policy maker for “common sense gun control”? The only explanation I can think of is best summed up in the following hijacked post.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.” – Unknown, November 12, 2012

Yet another example of the axis of Islam & the Left. Both are enemies of Western civilization & seek common cause toward its destruction. The Koran dictates that only Muslims are permitted the ownership of weapons. The Left demands that only forces of the State shall possess firearms.

I’ve spent the greater part of five years as a journalist, primarily working in radio, but to a lesser extent publishing in newspapers. I started out with opinions not all that different from Prof. Dunsky’s. I grew up shooting fairly traditional rifles and shotguns, and never considered the gun control legislation going after AR-15s and “high capacity magazines” to be an infringement of my rights — since I didn’t think it affected me. Over time, however, I learned that even by owning a shotgun I was considered a “gun nut” by most of my left-leaning co-workers. Times changed. I found a place where I liked to work with people who were likeminded or indifferent. I’ve graduated to owning a few “scary” black rifles and know all of the local owners of gun shops on a first name basis. I still encounter ignorance in local media, but nothing remotely on par to what Prof. Dunsky is advocating.

I grew up similarly. I didn’t give EBRs a second thought. In fact, for a long time I had no clue you could even legally own EBRs. It wasn’t until I got divorced and scraped together some money for my first Saiga around 2008. Now they have taken over my car projects because they are so much fun to tinker with and slightly(barely) cheaper.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

Item the first: Al-jezeera. Always consider the source of the bloviation. Especially when it’s a left leaning Al Jezeera reporting Andrea Dworkin clone.

Item the second: This mentioned gem…
“As a people, Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms. We have to think the unthinkable and recast the gun-control debate in personal terms: As things stand now, almost any of us can find ourselves in a nightmare scenario in almost any public place at almost any time. The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters. What matters is that it can and does routinely happen in the kind of ordinary places that most of us frequent.”

THIS IS WHY I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Item the third: NEVER trust anyone who wants to render you defenseless and vulnerable without personally and legally accepting responsibility for your safety and well-being. Especially the government.

You can be jingoistic/prejudiced/closeminded all you want, but Al Jazeera is putting out some of the best reporting in the world right now. Right up there with the BBC, and way better than the bullshit screaming argument shows that the US press specializes in. You know who else is right up there with them? RT. Russia Today. Not quite in the same class as the first two, but still doing solid work.

If you thunk that Al Jazeera, the BBC and Russia Today have great reporting, you’ll really fall in love with the North Korea News. It’s online, it’s free, and it’s right up there with the three you mentioned, all of which are slightly behind MSNBC for quality.

Actually South Korean news is pretty balanced for asian news; better than NHK, which is in full-blown historical and nuclear denial. The key to deciphering any foreign news is discovering the lens through which the outlet views the world at large. And updating that perception often.

I assume you’re going for “stop digging.” Yeah, I’ve watched some of North Korea’s news on occasion. I’m not ashamed of that. I think you misunderstood what my implication was by “breathtaking.” The things they tell their people about the world in general and the U.S. in particular are so divorced from reality that you almost have to think it’s a joke, even though you know it isn’t.

True, true. The funny part is Al Jazeera has earned the animus of Al Qaeda and all manner of other whacked-out Muslims – they just don’t like other homies in the ‘hood not taking their side. Lovely Egypt (good thing they got rid of Mubarak!) has arrested like 20 Al Jazeera journos and is going to prosecute them. Not to mention the constant bomb threats, attempted killings, and successful rapes, for their (often but not always) un biased reporting.

Of course earlier in 2013 about 20 reporters resigned because they felt AJ was slanting in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood….

Don’t forget, Christian Science Monitor is the only US-based news source that’s actually functional in most of the world’s hot spots, as opposed to our pathetic “news” orgs, save for, maybe, PBS. CSM is perhaps the most sane, calm analysis, without sensationalism that is out there. Anywhere.

Matt, I would guess your opinion of al J. was formed more than a few years ago, before many of their European bureau chiefs and most of their Egyptian staff quit. It isn’t the same organization it was. For a time it was being operated purely to build a quality reputation. Then the will of its staff was bent to the propaganda preferences of the owners, and the first-rate reporters started jumping ship.

As for the “The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters. What matters is that it can and does routinely happen in the kind of ordinary places that most of us frequent.” bit: Well, of course the statistical probability matters, which is why Dunsky should be lecturing on the danger of explosive diarrhea, given that she appears to spend most of her creative time next to a falafel truck.

“The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters.” A supposed academic immediately conceding the need for a rational argument. She should stop taking walks in the great outdoors, as there is a statistical chance of being struck by lightening, even when it’s not raining. Too bad they can’t ban lightening so she needn’t live in fear. Moreover, if there were ways for others to prevent being struck by a random bolt, she would likely advocate that this power should be taken from them. Again, how is this person professionally qualified to comment on the subject of 2A rights?

“Yes, we have constitutional rights that allow us to freedom of speech and to produce and consume violent entertainment. Yet these freedoms have proven to have dangerous, if not fatal, impacts on public safety. Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings – and what people have created, people can change, for their own good.”

There can be no more right more dangerous to “society” and to government in particular than freedom of speech.

“In order to achieve national standards for gun control our leaders cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of political expediency.” OK, I understand this–it is a challenge to politicians to not kow tow to the gun lobby.

But this: “As a people, Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms.” I am not sure I understand what this means. Does she mean that Second Amendment freedoms should be broadly defined? I could go for that. Or is this some sort of veiled way of saying that the “freedom” of the public to “safety” outweighs the right of the individual? Bizarre.

Killed en masse? No. Just reported en masse by Old Media gasping for one more breath. Thus every newspaper in the country covers a murder a thousand miles away, but fails to put on the front page a summary of the most important legislation before the state senate. And leaves out all successful defensive gun use. Priorities! Exercise of the First Amendment is more destructive to one’s life if used to oppose Newspeak.

And, do you really think there wasn’t the occasional murder-by-flintlock back in the days of the Founders? That they didn’t weigh the costs against the benefits? Balderdash. And they anticipated the likes of Bloomberg and Dunsky, thereby wrapping the most fundamental rights in a protective cover requiring 3/4ths of the states concur before the right can legitimately be abused by the federal government.

As things stand now, almost any of us can find ourselves in a nightmare scenario in almost any public place at almost any time. The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters.”
I am so sick of watching Antis take completely existential truths and applying them as arguments that somehow if there were no guns life would be different.
How horrible it is that the world, we live in, involves risk of gun crime! The problem with that logic is, as with most antis’ logic, the assertion that said risk is ONLY risk resulting from gun crime and guns.
Ultimately she is correct. At any time anywhere something horrible, and astronomically unlikely, can happen and kill you and the ones you love. You can be struck by lightning. Hit by a meteor. Hit by a car, or a drunk driver. Experience a heart attack. Be hit by a crashing plane. Your home can be destroyed in a tornado. You could experience an aneurism. And on and on and on.
We are all existing in a state of being where at a moment’s notice everything important to us can be taken away or snuffed out. That state is called being ALIVE. Life IS risk. Especially risk of losing your life. Nothing can actually remove the RISK of dying from your life. The problem is only when you learn that life is full of risk, which you must accept and not fear, do you get to experience the real wonders being alive has to offer.
I hope one day all the Antis get a chance to wake up and realize that. Maybe then they will want to go shooting.

I feel really dumb in admitting that I’ve never heard this term before, but wow. This almost perfectly describes the emerging dominant agenda of the political left for the better part of the last 20-30 years. I was not aware that there were unique flavors of “progressivism.”

I thought J school was more of a school of political and ideological thought that one subscribed to.
Yes, I know some places have masters programs in journalism or somesuch.
It’s not like an EE degree or getting an MD or JD….
I mean, Anderson Cooper struck out on his own and produced his own reports until somebody picked him up (after majoring in PolySci (why try…))
Piers Moron actually has a Journalism degree, but refuses to use it (much like his brain, which is a small, frail and feeble organ in his instance)…..
The sad thing is that journalism is so politically and ideologically charged and biased that I think it’s impossible to see Lou Dobs or John Stossel coming out of modern programs….

Sure it does. It’s just a different way of saying “If it saves just one child…”

She’s saying that even though the risk of being in any kind of mass shooting event is vanishingly rare, it does happen to some people, sometimes. She’s saying that even though that defies the odds, it does happen, and we should take whatever steps necessary (any steps necessary) to ensure that it never happens again. Ever.

After a little research I’ve developed a theory describing one type of civilian disarmer, Note that this doesn’t negate all the others we’ve identified, rather adds to the list.

This one is I think a good example of this newly (for me anyway) discovered type. I’m just waking up so this will be stretchy but it goes something like this;

The individual will usually be female but could be a highly conflict avoidant (read clinical level) male with a neurotic concern over his social status with other men compounded by his inability to even attempt to compete for recognition among them.

The individual will always seek consensus within their social group. Rather than attempting to assert their own beliefs founded in experience, logic and fact and receive recognition and status within the group based on the rightness of their ideas or the effectiveness of the outcomes of utilizing those idea this individual seeks status by formulating arguments that support whatever the group consensus may be without regard to it’s utility, logic or factual correctness. Each brings their own slant as they attempt to twist what they know of something to support the (potentially severely flawed) group consensus in a sort of trade of conformity for social status and security within the group.

Thus, if such a person is immersed in a social group in which civilian disarmament is a meme, they may champion that meme and work diligently to support and advance it not because of any deep seated belief in it’s value or correctness, but rather simply to achieve status within the group.

It is the mutual aid of the group and their internal cognitive dissonance that allows for facts to be grossly misinterpreted, ignored, twisted or left out all together and logic completely ignored in formulating arguments in support of the common meme. Further, this, and the drive to gain status in the group prevents anyone within the group from pointing out the factual and/or logical fallacies of the argument and instead to support it whole heartedly without regard on their part for it’s truthfulness or value as the truth doesn’t matter in the group context, any value truth and logic may have had having been reassigned to anything that supports the group consensus.

I thank the AI for pointing me in this direction of thinking via some very interesting posts and links and I’m greatly interested in the critiques which I hope will follow.

What you’re saying makes perfect sense. You’d have to get inside their individual heads to determine if they really do believe it or they’re just “going along to get along,” but people do seek advancement within their social groups, it’s true. And most of the time, you’re not going to get that by espousing views that run against your peers’ beliefs. That’s why you don’t see too many pro-2A officials (or students for that matter) on college campuses.

This hits the nail right on the head. It’s all about the group consensus for these people. Most of the so-called men in the infringement lobby have given up on actually being men and instead are participating wholeheartedly in the female social matrix.

I read Mina’s link yesterday (it sounds like Ardent may have too), and it was an epiphany. It put together a lot of things I had seen and guessed at, and made them finally make sense. Conservatives (and gun people in general, being mostly men) tend to argue in a typically male fashion, while the gun control “conversation” and liberal/progressive politics are the female social matrix writ large. And maleness is under attack everywhere in our society.

“Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings – and what people have created, people can change, for their own good.”

Exactly, unequivocally WRONG.

“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542